STCBDUCV. Should I have used control register 2 I knew I would be running in TCB mode
Thanks > On Jan 27, 2025, at 10:46 AM, Binyamin Dissen > <00000662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > How did you get the DUCT address? > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 13:37:00 +0000 Joseph Reichman > <000005812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > :>It’s time to FESS up I got this running under TESTAUTH trying to implement > TRAP2 > :> > :>I moved the address of the trap control block at X’2C’ bit 0 of this > address was zero at bit 31 I turned that on to enable trap > :>I was in key zero supervisor state > :> > :>Does it matter that the TCB it was running under had a TCBPFK of x’80’ > :> > :>Don’t expect too many people to know as it’s not something done everyday > :> > :>But Binyamin seems to have run across almost everything > :> > :>Thanks > :> > :>Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > :>________________________________ > :>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of > Binyamin Dissen <00000662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> > :>Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 8:31:09 AM > :>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> > :>Subject: Re: Explanation of TCBPFK > :> > :>Strangely enough, PIC-5 was not wrapped into 0C4. > :> > :>Of course, PIC-5 cannot occur with DAT (unless, I guess, the page or segment > :>table entry points to non-existant storage). > :> > :> > :>On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:33:42 +0000 Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote: > :> > :>:>To clarify, an S0C4 can have any of the interrupt codes 4, 10, 11, 2B, > 38, 39, 3A, 3B, and only 4 can relate to the protection key. > :>:> > :>:>Does anybody have any statistics on the relative frequencies of S0C4 IC 4 > for key mismatch, fetch protect, low storage protect, page protect and > segment protect? > :>:> > :>:>-- > :>:>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > :>:>http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > :>:>??? ?????????? ??? > :>:>?????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? > :>:> > :>:> > :>:> > :>:>________________________________________ > :>:>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf > of Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> > :>:>Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:07 PM > :>:>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > :>:>Subject: Re: Explanation of TCBPFK > :>:> > :>:>External Message: Use Caution > :>:> > :>:> > :>:>Way back in the dawn of history, IBM did something that appalled me, and > you are the latest victim. While for other S0Cx ABENDs the last digit > identifies the program interrupt code, for S0C4 there are multiple possible > interrupt code, and 0004 is not the most common. Most likely you got a 0010 > or 0011, or the Z equivalent. > > -- > Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> > http://www.dissensoftware.com > > Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
